Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39789132›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Evaluation of external and radiological landmark methods for optimizing ultrasound-guided right internal jugular venous catheterization depth in cardiac surgery.

Artid Samerchua, Panuwat Lapisatepun, Pattaranee Srichairatanakool, Tanyong Pipanmekaporn, Wariya Sukhupragarn, Settapong Boonsri, Nutchanart Bunchungmongkol, Lalita Huntrakul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Artid SamerchuaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Panuwat LapisatepunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand. Auipl148@icloud.com.
Pattaranee SrichairatanakoolDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Tanyong PipanmekapornDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Wariya SukhupragarnDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Settapong BoonsriDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Nutchanart BunchungmongkolDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Rd, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Lalita HuntrakulDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The formula-based estimation of the right internal jugular venous (IJV) catheterization depth can be inaccurate when using ultrasound guidance. External landmark-based and radiological landmark-based methods have been proposed as alternatives to estimate the insertion depth. This study aimed to evaluate these methods using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided insertion depth as the reference. Ninety-seven adult cardiac surgery patients underwent real-time ultrasound-guided right IJV catheterization, with placement at the superior vena cava-right atrium (SVC-RA) junction under TEE guidance. The primary outcome compared the accuracy of external-landmark and radiological-landmark methods in estimating optimal catheter position (2 cm above to 1 cm below the SVC-RA junction), while secondary outcomes assessed their reliability and agreement with TEE. The external-landmark method proved more accurate than the radiological-landmark method (91.8% vs. 68%, p < 0.001) and had a higher correlation with TEE (r = 0.83 vs. 0.67). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference of 0.08 cm between external-landmark and TEE methods (limits of agreement: -1.75 to 1.90 cm) and 0.43 cm for radiological-landmark (limits of agreement: -2.63 to 3.49 cm). Overall, the external-landmark method is a reliable and simple technique for estimating right IJV catheter depth and is more useful in cardiac surgery compared to the radiological-landmark method.Trial registration Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20200410012). Date registered April 9, 2020.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresCatheterization, Central VenousEchocardiography, TransesophagealJugular VeinsAgedAnatomic LandmarksFemaleHeart AtriaHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonography, InterventionalVena Cava, SuperiorAnesthesiaCentral venous catheterInternal jugular veinTransesophageal echocardiography

Identifiers

PMID39789132
PMCPMC11717913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.